Of course, these areas will want all taxpayers to subsidise their recovery. That being the case, we should reevaluate frequency of storm stats, and then mandate that aid cannot be used to rebuild in low areas. Anyone who does rebuild should be denied any further help. There should also be rigid building codes. For example, require homes to be built on stilts where flooding is likely to be less than 8', and then enforce rules on what can be placed in the space under the home.

New Orleans, and other similar areas should be moved to higher ground.

Since flooding seldom exceeds 15 foot the real lesson, which should not have to be learnt is - do not build or buy or site anything vulnerable to flooding (including chemical plants and energy hubs) under that 15 foot water elevation. And like the three pigs do not build your house out of straw. Its basic urban planning and nothing to do with climate change or hurricanes

Project Syndicate promotes itself as a top notch site. It would do well to get its science from scientists, and not political "scientific" consensus.

To quote NOAA(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration- 'NOAA: … It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate). …"

Even the IPCC, a solely political institution, is circumspect in dealing with "climate change" effects:"IPCC AR5… Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin … In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low …"

Astrophysicist Adam Frank would do well to stick to astrophysics. Any atmospheric physicist would tell us that the climate is driven by temperature differences, not absolute temperatures. One only has to look at a thunderstorm, which can even occur even in winter, to see temperature differences driving one of the major atmospheric modes of circulation. One that is not properly handled in ANY climate model because it is barely understood, much less possible to simulate.

While I agree that Sitglitz is making a link that has no scientific claim, its is also true that the claim that warmer weather will intensify the potential degree of destruction of hurricanes is the consensus.

I will here avoid the Creationist, Supremacist fallacy on saying that what Stiglitz is claiming has also not be denied by science, because I know its not how science works.

In the end, I think this point is not vital to the argument he his making on this article.

Project Syndicate promotes itself as a top notch site. It would do well to get its science from scientists, and not political "scientific" consensus.

To quote NOAA(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration- 'NOAA: … It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate). …"

Even the IPCC, a solely political institution, is circumspect in dealing with "climate change" effects:"IPCC AR5… Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin … In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low …"

Astrophysicist Adam Frank would do well to stick to astrophysics. Any atmospheric physicist would tell us that the climate is driven by temperature differences, not absolute temperatures. One only has to look at a thunderstorm, which can even occur even in winter, to see temperature differences driving one of the major atmospheric modes of circulation. One that is not properly handled in ANY climate model because it is barely understood, much less possible to simulate.

The left never misses a chance to use the term "denier" for anyone who might disagree with their flimsy climate theories and Good Ole Joe took his turn with that epithet. What he failed to point out is that the IPCC, for all its many flaws, also said, "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

Science does not always use models to predict or elaborate on the future, specially human sciences.

Its also a common thing to models, that they are only able to explain or predict once we are on stability. Tipping points are usually very hard to predict, because that's the nature of most models, but most of the models can tell us what will happen until the model tips again.

I'm no expert on climate models, but I believe this is what happens here too.

First, typical of scheming writers, “alarmist” climatologist Joseph Stieglitz grabs hold of Harvey and fires another blank at global warming “deniers”. Stieglitz needs reminding that readers know that he knows that the term is abusive in the extreme. “Deniers” is a disrespectful term used for those who deny the Nazi Holocaust, and is used by those wishing to win an argument by smear, by attempting to assign guilt by Nazi association. In this case Stieglitz attempts to tar those who scientifically disagree with his and his IPCC’s omniscience. Ugly is the man who uses the term in such a manner. Good luck to anyone who can show a global warming connection to the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin, and to Houston. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/Atlantic_Storm_Count.jpg The Houston and Florida hurricanes do not a global warming correlation make. Stieglitz, aware that “global warming” and “climate change” are losing their punch, descends into using the term “weather variability”. Point of agreement. Who doesn’t agree that global weather varies at earthly point at every moment.

No, Mr Stieglitz, not yet does “everyone turn to government” in times of need, only those who have caught the Obama-Stieglitz line of “more government is good, trust me”. America every day sees the government bully in its face, and has tasted its incompetence at its worst, worst to-date, that is. Stieglitz wishes Americans would vote for those who would impose ton upon ton more of government on them via the oxymoronic “effective government investment”, and even more “strong regulations” than America must now endure. Stieglitz’s prescription would cost more than any hurricane. Stieglitz is entitled to his personal economic, political and global temperature opinions, but no one need take his solutions any more seriously than a neighbor’s. We know that economic and climate predictions have been and will be as unpredictable as the number of hurricanes we will have next season. And we must remember that Stieglitz likely has income from governments or governmental-supported institutions that he accidently lobbies for via articles like this one, that income ultimately paid for by taxpayers.

Yes, America’s right is in shambles, with Trump unschooled in what has really made America great (by sticking to its Constitution rather than his floating like a butterfly). Trump was elected because of America’s exhaustion and disgust with the likewise out of control left. They had suffered too much by the weighty governmental imposed by the actions derivative from the Obama-Stieglitz “government knows best” mantra. America’s politics, like global temperatures and climate, is unpredictable. But unlike climate and global temperatures, man is in charge of politics. So, there is every hope of the eventual Constitutional resolution of America’s current confusion. But there is no hope of predicting global temperatures and their effects on Houston and Florida 50 years out.

I don't believe that the 'denier' epithet is reserved for holocaust deniers and it is particularly apt for people who refuse to accept the overwhelming weight of evidence in favor of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. There is absolutely nothing ugly about this.

Most people accept that human activity adds some amount of heat to the air. What’s at issue is not the anthropogenic element, but the global warming hypothesis in toto, which to the chagrin of many politicians, globalists and scientists in this new field is unconvincing. The hypothesis remains a weak hypothesis, and there certainly is no cause for the panic that those global warmists at the leading edge of media exposure try to make it. Even assuming that there were significant global warming in toto, no one has the slightest idea, except in the most general hypothetical terms, of how costly the damage might be. Here’s the most sober recent article I’ve seen on that subject, http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2017/08/on-climate-change-2.html . In addition, there are so many of the usual scientific problems, but now on a huge scale, of sufficient data accuracy and collection, the typical sensitivity of modeling whether simple or complex and modeler bias, the fact that those doing the work are susceptible to the huge influence of the desire for continuous funding from their sustainers, whether the panic outlay of huge an incalculable amount of funds is at all feasible or desirable, etc. The major problem is the shear ignorance of the fact that we are human and have met and will meet in the future any problems. We don’t live in a perfect world thank goodness, and those who think they are the world’s governors seem to think that what they want, at whatever cost, is what normal people want. In sum, the argument from ignorance fallacy fits the heated global warming masquerade perfectly. So far as your comment about “denier”, you are plain wrong. The word is used to shut people up for the reason I stated, and Stieglitz should offer good arguments instead of slurs.

Research on public opinion shows that voters' opinions are responsive to one thing above all else: the cues of elites. People don’t have strong opinions on political “issues” one way or the other. They believe and do what people like them believe and do, and they take their cues on that from trusted tribal leaders.

To put it more simply, voters will tend to believe or support whatever people on their favorite TV or talk radio programs tell them about the necessity for government regulations.

It is elites, and only elites, who have the power to end this surreal farce.

Professor Stiglitz nicely illustrates central dilemmas of contemporary US politics: stuck between the lunatic left and the lunatic right. In the world of the lunatic left, it is all about global warming, in and of itself, the most classic example of cargo cult science and/or the madness of crowds of the well fed and comfortably kept variety. On the right side, it is all about defending failed (again) economic philosophy through the propaganda of scapegoating ,which happens to meet the operational definition of fascism.

In the middle, are the rest of us. As the political world around us is spinning out of control, soon to be followed by the next economic downturn, perhaps a nice little nuclear war, we the little people are wondering, will the madness ever end? Do I really have to go into politics as my second calling? Is this all that is left? Or head for the hills and buy some canned food while I can? Gold? Bitcoin?

In the world of actual reality, the world remains full of want. The world population has more than doubled in my lifetime, mostly in the developing world, and these hungry masses are competing with us, the comfortable and fat ones, for scarce resources. They want to be like us. This added pressure on resources puts downward pressure on our living standards. This is what globalization is actually about. The US ,with 5% of world population ,still consumes about 20% of world oil production. About 50% of this oil is imported. Thanx to fracking it is not 80%, but it is still half. We still have some ways to go in that downward spiral unless something is done about it, current oil prices notwithstanding. As the spiral progresses with elites either focused on the preservation of their privilege or on quixotic quests to control the weather by shutting down the civilization, the unnerved masses become ever more vulnerable to the fascist persuasion. It is well past time to end excesses on both ends of the political spectrum and focus on the plight of these masses. Really focus on their plight, realistically focus on their plight. When we do, we will have no trouble agreeing that we cannot eliminate fossil fuels, or even particularly limit their use, in our lifetime. Actually ,what we do need to do is supplement these fuels with new technologies, which happen to be technologies of the "green" kind. This will allow us to stretch available fossil fuels and help the developing world by leaving more of said fuels for their own use.

Coming back to the hurricanes, which provide another opportunity for self righteous climate flogging of the climate sociopaths and assorted witches, they are neither stronger nor more frequent than well documented past events. They may be more destructive of property, though not lives, because too many people are allowed to build on flood planes while expecting an economic bailout when it floods. Lack of realistic zoning plays a major role as well, as does upending of the environment that used to soak all that water up. Here the professor has a valid point.

The presidency of Donald Trump should have been a wake up call to the left but so far, it seems, the message has not gotten through. It is the economy, not the weather, that we need to focus on. We also need to stop debasing science with climate hyperboles, while complaining that the rotten public no longer believes the scientists. There is no definitive proof and not even a good hint that small increases in carbon dioxide concentrations due to human activity control or substantially influence the weather. Nothing. Nada. There is a relatively small group of people with PhD degrees that have been riding this theory as a career booster, and a much larger group of political opportunists that see to good an opportunity to pass up. Lets put all of that where it belongs, somewhere between the trash bin of history and a museum of the bizarre and focus on our real problems. Our real problem is rising fascist threat in the nuclear world. While not exclusively, this threat is at least partially underwritten by economic issues. Focus, like a laser beam, on those. Our self preservation may very well depend on our focus.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.